The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Sports

Ian Bell Run Out Incident at Trent Bridge

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 · >>
When an controversial incident occurs in a sporting contest, what is the more important consideration?
Letter of the Law
Spirit of the Game
View Results
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#1New Post! Aug 01, 2011 @ 09:54:17
This situation arose yesterday, just before the tea interval in the second test match between England and India, at Trent Bridge, Nottingham:

The drama started when England batsman Eoin Morgan played the last ball before tea to long leg. There, Indian fieldsman Praveen Kumar made contact with the ball before falling over the boundary and was clearly under the impression that it had gone for four as he got up and slowly returned it without any sense of urgency.

The English batsman, Ian Bell and Eoin Morgan had run three. Bell then grounded his bat and headed towards the pavilion for tea as Kumar's throw made its way back to the Abinhav Mukund at the wicket. At this point, the ball was not officially "dead" and as Bell was out of his ground, Mukund took the bails off and appealed.

The appeal was referred to third umpire, Billy Bowden who, quite correctly ruled Bell out much to the bemusement of Bell who, thinking the ball had gone for four (and was therefore "dead" before being returned to the wicket) had erroneously left his ground.

When the crowd realised what had been done, they, to a man, booed the Indians from the field.

During the tea interval, England Captain Andrew Strauss and Coach Andy Flower went to the Indian Captain Mahendra Dhoni and asked if he might reinstate Bell. Dhoni agreed to consult with his team and after doing so, withdrew the appeal, thus allowing Bell to resume his innings after the tea interval.

There is a clear conflict here between applying the letter of the laws of the game, and the "Spirit of Fair Play".

Firstly, the Indians were perfectly entitled to run Bell out. He had committed the schoolboy error of leaving his ground while the ball was still live and no fault could be attached to the Indians for running him out. They were quite within their rights to do so.

The Umpires followed the laws of the game flawlessly. They verified with Billy Bowden, via TV replay, that the ball had not crossed the boundary and was therefore still live and so the run out was valid.

However.........

This was clearly a case of Bell being confused by the actions of the fieldsman in being casual in returning the ball in a way that all cricketers would consider indicative of a boundary having been scored. Bell was naive and foolish in his actions, but was not attempting to "steal" another run. He was simply doing what all cricketers would do in that situation, and headed off to get his tea.

So.........

What do you think should have happened..? Should Flower and Strauss have simply accepted the decision and done nothing..?

Was there a reasonable claim for clemency towards Ian Bell..?

Should Dhoni have simply stuck to his guns and declined to withdraw the appeal..?

Is the letter of the law, in any sporting contest more important than the "spirit of the game"..?

Where do you stand on this one..?


.
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Aug 01, 2011 @ 10:14:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Nz_rgnfHs


This (admittedly wobbly) youtube clip shows the incident.

The reaction of the crowd is darkly amusing in a red-faced sort of way. It's not surprising that they should boo the Indians off the field at tea. English cricket fans have a very strong sense of fair play and, rightly or wrongly, saw the Indian's behaviour in running Bell out as an act of knavery...... even though they (the Indians) were perfectly within their rights to run Bell out.

Embarrassingly though, they booed the Indians back onto the field after the tea break, not knowing that Bell had been reinstated by the magnanimous act of M S Dhoni, the Indian Captain. The boos quickly turned to cheers and an ovation of thanks for the sporting act. The crowd was rather quiet though, for the next 20 minutes of play as they realised they had booed the good guys.

The Indians had been magnanimous and dignified in their behaviour and the England fans had given them a serious boo-ing to. Not a good response from supporters who have a global reputation for good humour, sporting attitude and appreciation of the nobler ideals of the great game of cricket.

One thinks the Trent Bridge authorities would have made some sort of public announcement before the teams came back out, so that the proper gesture could have been made towards the Indians, rather than the embarrassment of what actually happened.


.
Jacquesmetat On August 01, 2012




Out on the 'oggin, United King
#3New Post! Aug 01, 2011 @ 11:19:12
Bell was a total numpty. By all rights he should have been given out fair and square but this is cricket and there are unwritten rules about what is fair and proper that simply dont apply to other sports. You have to do the right thing or be forever condemned. Lets face it the bodyline series happened in 1934 and England didn't do anything outside of the rules of the game in that, but the Australians have never stopped bleating about it ever since.

So well done the indians for calling Bell back. Running him out was the right thing to do but so was calling him back. Their point was made but then they did the decent thing in the end. The spirit of cricket lives in places where other sports have ceased to go.
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#4New Post! Aug 01, 2011 @ 12:49:53
Well done indeed, to the Indians. The reaction of the commentators on Sky Sports was interesting. Nasser Hussain and Shane Warne both condemned the decision to call Bell back, whereas David Lloyd and Michael Vaughan were full of praise for the Indian's decision.

I also note your comment about the Australians and bodyline. At one point, David Lloyd asked Shane Warne what might have been the response if an England captain had knocked on the Australian's door, in a similar situation, during an Ashes test. Warne replied that Allan Border or Steve Waugh would have given a two-word reply, the second of which would have been 'Off'. No love lost there, then.

Cricket is one of the few remaining sports in the world where standards of sportsmanship, decency and magnanimity still exist. The players will compete in a tough, uncompromising manner. Some may play on the very edge of the laws and occasionally, get away with a bit of petty chicanery here and there but I was impressed by the way Rahul Dravid conducted himself when questioned by the Sky Sports team at the close of play. He said that as the Indian players had gone to their dressing room during the tea interval, they all had a bad feeling about Bell's dismissal. None of them were really happy about what had happened, and when Dhoni came to them and asked for their feelings on the matter, the decision to reinstate Bell had been unanimous.

Note that: Unanimous.

That says a lot, in my opinion. It wasn't the decision of the Captain alone, but of the whole team. They had been unsettled by what had happened, and although they were technically in the right, they didn't want to win a game in a manner that left a bad taste in the mouth. Better to give Bell a reprieve and if they were to win the game, then they would do so with much greater a sense of honour.

I wonder if such thoughts ever crossed the minds of Allan Border or Steve Waugh...?


.
Leon On December 28, 2019




San Diego, California
#5New Post! Aug 01, 2011 @ 17:42:52
"Spirit of Fair Play" should not exist in competitive pro sports, as long as it doesn't involve covert cheating. Rules are rules, and should be openly be planned for and dealt with accordingly.

Same reason I applauded Luis Suarez's handball in the World Cup.
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#6New Post! Aug 02, 2011 @ 09:14:17
@Leon Said

"Spirit of Fair Play" should not exist in competitive pro sports, as long as it doesn't involve covert cheating. Rules are rules, and should be openly be planned for and dealt with accordingly.

Same reason I applauded Luis Suarez's handball in the World Cup.



Was that the handball in the semi final between Uruguay and Ghana, which resulted in a penalty kick that Ghana missed and were eliminated from the competition..? If that's the one you mean, then in my opinion, by applauding the act you condone cheating.

I suppose it depends on how you view the concept of "What is sport". If sport means nothing more to you than a contest to be won at all costs, regardless of how it is achieved, then I find it rather sad that you are deprived the finer aspects of sporting endeavour.

To me, sport embodies a nobility of spirit.... the finer aspects of human endeavour. I doubt very much those who see only the end result ever aspire to that. I think that's rather sad.

Incidentally, India lost the test match yesterday. England built up a big score and proceeded to bowl India out inside a day and thus go 2-0 up in the four match series. The Indians didn't complain... they didn't use the Ian Bell incident as an excuse for the paucity of their batting in the second innings. Instead, they congratulated England as being the better team on the day. They acknowledged their own shortcomings and vowed to do better come the third test at Edgbaston, Birmingham next week. The England players congratulated India on a hard fought contest and looked forward to a tough contest next time out.

Humility in defeat, and resolution to do better next time from India, and magnanimity in victory from England. What's not to like..?

This is a marvellous series, played hard and competitively. The stakes are high. India are currently number one in the world test cricket rankings (as well as being ODI World Cup winners barely three months ago), but if England win this series by two clear victories, then England will go above India into top spot in the test rankings, so there is a lot to play for. There will also be an ODI series and a T20 match too. There is still a lot of cricket to be played between these two teams, this summer. England have gotten off to a flying start, but they would be unwise to rest on their laurels.

But for all the hard play and tense competition, the players aren't letting their desire to win override their instincts for decency and fair play. As it turned out, the decision to reinstate Ian Bell didn't affect the outcome of the game.... England would still have won... but the Indians weren't to know that at the time.

The spirit of sport was the winner, and those cold, empty vessels who see only win or lose were given an example of how certain values really are more important to those who have nobility of soul and strength of spirit.

The day we lose those values, will be the day the concept of "sport" is dead.


.
Leon On December 28, 2019




San Diego, California
#7New Post! Aug 03, 2011 @ 03:43:17
@Jennifer1984 Said

Was that the handball in the semi final between Uruguay and Ghana, which resulted in a penalty kick that Ghana missed and were eliminated from the competition..? If that's the one you mean, then in my opinion, by applauding the act you condone cheating.

I suppose it depends on how you view the concept of "What is sport". If sport means nothing more to you than a contest to be won at all costs, regardless of how it is achieved, then I find it rather sad that you are deprived the finer aspects of sporting endeavour.

To me, sport embodies a nobility of spirit.... the finer aspects of human endeavour. I doubt very much those who see only the end result ever aspire to that. I think that's rather sad.

Incidentally, India lost the test match yesterday. England built up a big score and proceeded to bowl India out inside a day and thus go 2-0 up in the four match series. The Indians didn't complain... they didn't use the Ian Bell incident as an excuse for the paucity of their batting in the second innings. Instead, they congratulated England as being the better team on the day. They acknowledged their own shortcomings and vowed to do better come the third test at Edgbaston, Birmingham next week. The England players congratulated India on a hard fought contest and looked forward to a tough contest next time out.

Humility in defeat, and resolution to do better next time from India, and magnanimity in victory from England. What's not to like..?

This is a marvellous series, played hard and competitively. The stakes are high. India are currently number one in the world test cricket rankings (as well as being ODI World Cup winners barely three months ago), but if England win this series by two clear victories, then England will go above India into top spot in the test rankings, so there is a lot to play for. There will also be an ODI series and a T20 match too. There is still a lot of cricket to be played between these two teams, this summer. England have gotten off to a flying start, but they would be unwise to rest on their laurels.

But for all the hard play and tense competition, the players aren't letting their desire to win override their instincts for decency and fair play. As it turned out, the decision to reinstate Ian Bell didn't affect the outcome of the game.... England would still have won... but the Indians weren't to know that at the time.

The spirit of sport was the winner, and those cold, empty vessels who see only win or lose were given an example of how certain values really are more important to those who have nobility of soul and strength of spirit.

The day we lose those values, will be the day the concept of "sport" is dead.


.



Suarez's handball was not cheating. The definition of cheating, as it pertains to a game, is breaking the rules SECRETLY. So as to not get caught and suffer the consequences of doing so.

He did not perform his act secretly. He used his hand openly and fully expecting the consequence of such an action. He, at the spur of the moment had to decide between two actions, whether to let the ball sail in and lose the game, or to block it with his hand and allow for his goalie to be given a second chance to block it on the ensuing kick. He chose the latter rather than the former. He was playing by the rules that are in place for either situation and simply chose wisely.

So to call this an act of cheating rather than just a brilliant strategic move done within the rules is akin, in American football, to calling a defensive back a cheater for tackling a receiver in the end zone BEFORE he catches the ball, preferring the penalty of the opposing team getting another crack for a touchdown at the 1 yard line rather than letting the receiver score one right then and there.

Same could be said on offense of a quarterback who intentionally grounds a pass rather than risk an interception by instead throwing it to a receiver crowded with defenders.

To call this an act of cheating would be akin, in baseball, to calling a pitcher a cheater for intentionally allowing the opposing team's slugger to gain first base via 4 outside pitches rather than risk throwing targeted strikes only to see him slam the ball out for a home run.

Same could be said on offense of a batter who intentionally flies out so a teammate could easily score from third base before the outfielder can throw it all the way in for the tag.

To call this an act of cheating would even be akin to letting an opponent take your queen in chess in order to get him into a board position that eventually traps his king, and thereby loses the game.

There are, of course, many other examples, some of which I am sure you could come up with sports played in your area, but you get the picture.

Thing is, ALL these above mentioned strategic moves are performed so regularly that it is to the point that they are now just considered intelligent acts of strategy that prefers the risk of the penalties that result, to the prevailing risk that would occur otherwise. Nobody even gives a second thought to any of them as an unsportsmanlike act. They are a part of the game, and accepted as such. Therefore, one performing such a move certainly is not breaking the rules, but simply playing by them in a different manner. If anything, it makes the game more exciting to follow.

A handball in soccer is no different, as long as it isn't done covertly as to avoid the penalty, hence, avoid the rules for it and the game. If the latter isn’t the case, then it is not cheating, but, rather, yet another example of a bold piece of open strategy by a quick thinking player to keep his team alive in, in Suarez's case, the World Championship, much like the above examples are.

To be honest with you, the reason I used this example to illustrate my contention with unwritten rules, such as your "rules of fair play" is because I know very well that Europeans had a hard time with Suarez's act, while the rest of the world didn't, finding this out while going at it with countless of others in other forums during the final week of the Cup. It was an interesting phenomenon, and the conclusion that I came away with from those discussions was that the reason Europeans had a harder time with it was because they, indeed, have different “unwritten rules” that the rest of the world didn't exactly find reverent likewise, or even knew about. One of these is the handball, which, apparently was an absolute "no, no" among Europeans no matter what the advantage a use of it might actually have. It didn't matter if it was written down or not. The rest of the world, however, simply saw it as strategic in the same manner as the other examples listed above.

The problem with such unwritten "code" is that rest of the world, including, of course, Uruguay, couldn't understand what the outcry was, because they don't have this same unwritten code themselves, a code that was primarily fostered in Europe during the sport's lengthy history, but not necessarily elsewhere. Therefore, anyone entering into the sport later can only go by what IS written, letter by letter, and play accordingly to try and win the game under that.

In short, not every participant has the same unwritten rules as everyone else. This is why rules must be written down and are.

And if someone doesn't like how such a participant plays by such written rules, because of some unwritten rule that that participant didn't know, or care, was so taboo, then simply change the rule as it is written rather than whine or complain about it.

Sportsmanship certainly has its place, but its removal does not occur in instances like these. Players are still trying gain an edge over the competition, teams are trying to win matches and championships, as are coaches. To rob them of the ability to do so with intelligent, albeit divergent, strategy within written rules would actually be more unsportsmanlike, in my opinion. Otherwise, you might as well consider any attempt to win as being unsportsmanlike.

Believe me, I am a elementary school physical education teacher, and I constantly instill concepts of sportsmanship almost as fervently as the concepts involved learning of physical skills. At this age and level, these two things take precedence over the winning of games, as competitive games are not the focus. In addition to being taught the proper form of locomotor movements, throwing, catching, hitting, and kicking, the kids learn timeless concepts of sportsmanship, such as cooperative play, congratulatory words, trying their best, and acceptance of failure with their head still up. The same could be said of sports leagues set up for kids. Coaches in such leagues often focus on getting everyone to participate rather than only utilizing the best athletes to win the game.

However, as the kids grow older, into their teens and on to adulthood they learn not only how to utilize such skills in more competitive sports league play for the more real purpose of winning, but learn how to utilize strategy in the process of doing so. Ideas of sportsmanship are still carried out, but many are done so in a more constructive manner towards winning. They learn that the other team will do what it can by the rules to defeat them and that this is to be accepted and simply countered, without complaint.

This even becomes more expected once they reach adulthood and people are actually employed and paid to participate in sports and only keep their jobs if they successfully defeat their opponents. Coaches are regularly canned if they don’t win. Livelihoods then become at stake.

And to ask for one to follow oftentimes unknown “unwritten rules”, even if still following written rules, at the risk of losing their job, is much more unsportsmanlike and downright ridiculous, in my opinion.

Change the rules if you don’t like how somebody plays by them, rather than being a sore loser about it. I think it was a much worse display of poor sportsmanship for England to do the latter in their mere request of the Indians than it would have been for India to have not granted their request.
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#8New Post! Aug 03, 2011 @ 12:13:39
@Leon Said

Suarez's handball was not cheating. The definition of cheating, as it pertains to a game, is breaking the rules SECRETLY. So as to not get caught and suffer the consequences of doing so.

He did not perform his act secretly. He used his hand openly and fully expecting the consequence of such an action. He, at the spur of the moment had to decide between two actions, whether to let the ball sail in and lose the game, or to block it with his hand and allow for his goalie to be given a second chance to block it on the ensuing kick. He chose the latter rather than the former. He was playing by the rules that are in place for either situation and simply chose wisely.

So to call this an act of cheating rather than just a brilliant strategic move done within the rules is akin, in American football, to calling a defensive back a cheater for tackling a receiver in the end zone BEFORE he catches the ball, preferring the penalty of the opposing team getting another crack for a touchdown at the 1 yard line rather than letting the receiver score one right then and there.

Same could be said on offense of a quarterback who intentionally grounds a pass rather than risk an interception by instead throwing it to a receiver crowded with defenders.

To call this an act of cheating would be akin, in baseball, to calling a pitcher a cheater for intentionally allowing the opposing team's slugger to gain first base via 4 outside pitches rather than risk throwing targeted strikes only to see him slam the ball out for a home run.

Same could be said on offense of a batter who intentionally flies out so a teammate could easily score from third base before the outfielder can throw it all the way in for the tag.

To call this an act of cheating would even be akin to letting an opponent take your queen in chess in order to get him into a board position that eventually traps his king, and thereby loses the game.

There are, of course, many other examples, some of which I am sure you could come up with sports played in your area, but you get the picture.

Thing is, ALL these above mentioned strategic moves are performed so regularly that it is to the point that they are now just considered intelligent acts of strategy that prefers the risk of the penalties that result, to the prevailing risk that would occur otherwise. Nobody even gives a second thought to any of them as an unsportsmanlike act. They are a part of the game, and accepted as such. Therefore, one performing such a move certainly is not breaking the rules, but simply playing by them in a different manner. If anything, it makes the game more exciting to follow.

A handball in soccer is no different, as long as it isn't done covertly as to avoid the penalty, hence, avoid the rules for it and the game. If the latter isn’t the case, then it is not cheating, but, rather, yet another example of a bold piece of open strategy by a quick thinking player to keep his team alive in, in Suarez's case, the World Championship, much like the above examples are.

To be honest with you, the reason I used this example to illustrate my contention with unwritten rules, such as your "rules of fair play" is because I know very well that Europeans had a hard time with Suarez's act, while the rest of the world didn't, finding this out while going at it with countless of others in other forums during the final week of the Cup. It was an interesting phenomenon, and the conclusion that I came away with from those discussions was that the reason Europeans had a harder time with it was because they, indeed, have different “unwritten rules” that the rest of the world didn't exactly find reverent likewise, or even knew about. One of these is the handball, which, apparently was an absolute "no, no" among Europeans no matter what the advantage a use of it might actually have. It didn't matter if it was written down or not. The rest of the world, however, simply saw it as strategic in the same manner as the other examples listed above.

The problem with such unwritten "code" is that rest of the world, including, of course, Uruguay, couldn't understand what the outcry was, because they don't have this same unwritten code themselves, a code that was primarily fostered in Europe during the sport's lengthy history, but not necessarily elsewhere. Therefore, anyone entering into the sport later can only go by what IS written, letter by letter, and play accordingly to try and win the game under that.

In short, not every participant has the same unwritten rules as everyone else. This is why rules must be written down and are.

And if someone doesn't like how such a participant plays by such written rules, because of some unwritten rule that that participant didn't know, or care, was so taboo, then simply change the rule as it is written rather than whine or complain about it.

Sportsmanship certainly has its place, but its removal does not occur in instances like these. Players are still trying gain an edge over the competition, teams are trying to win matches and championships, as are coaches. To rob them of the ability to do so with intelligent, albeit divergent, strategy within written rules would actually be more unsportsmanlike, in my opinion. Otherwise, you might as well consider any attempt to win as being unsportsmanlike.

Believe me, I am a elementary school physical education teacher, and I constantly instill concepts of sportsmanship almost as fervently as the concepts involved learning of physical skills. At this age and level, these two things take precedence over the winning of games, as competitive games are not the focus. In addition to being taught the proper form of locomotor movements, throwing, catching, hitting, and kicking, the kids learn timeless concepts of sportsmanship, such as cooperative play, congratulatory words, trying their best, and acceptance of failure with their head still up. The same could be said of sports leagues set up for kids. Coaches in such leagues often focus on getting everyone to participate rather than only utilizing the best athletes to win the game.

However, as the kids grow older, into their teens and on to adulthood they learn not only how to utilize such skills in more competitive sports league play for the more real purpose of winning, but learn how to utilize strategy in the process of doing so. Ideas of sportsmanship are still carried out, but many are done so in a more constructive manner towards winning. They learn that the other team will do what it can by the rules to defeat them and that this is to be accepted and simply countered, without complaint.

This even becomes more expected once they reach adulthood and people are actually employed and paid to participate in sports and only keep their jobs if they successfully defeat their opponents. Coaches are regularly canned if they don’t win. Livelihoods then become at stake.

And to ask for one to follow oftentimes unknown “unwritten rules”, even if still following written rules, at the risk of losing their job, is much more unsportsmanlike and downright ridiculous, in my opinion.

Change the rules if you don’t like how somebody plays by them, rather than being a sore loser about it. I think it was a much worse display of poor sportsmanship for England to do the latter in their mere request of the Indians than it would have been for India to have not granted their request.



Actually, I fully understand a lot of what you say in your response. Firstly though, I'm afraid I can't comment on the rules or ethics of American Football because I simply don't know enough about them. I bow to your superior knowledge there, but I would point out that they were surely drafted by non-Europeans and therefore written to a different set of sporting values.

I am quite aware that a number of countries.... almost exclusively in the Americas.... have no understanding of the European concept of "Fair Play", although many South Americans who have come to make a lot of money playing football (real football, not armoured rugby.... and we were calling our game football while Americans were slaughtering each other at Gettysburg, whereas the Princeton vs Rutgers match didn't take place until 1869 so please acknowledge and respect our precedence in the nomenclature) in Europe have come to understand, and even enjoy, the principles of fair play to which we aspire.

I understand where you're coming from when you talk of cheating as a form of strategy. The American concept of sport is often quite different to that of Europeans. I once conducted a poll on the subject on another forum. I set two questions under the heading "What is sport". The questions were:

A. Sport is a part of the entertainment industry the purpose of which is to enrich the participants and organisations connected with whilst providing leisure to the masses

B. Sport is a contest between two or more individuals or teams, played to an agreed set of rules and common values, for the purpose of achieving an honourable and fair result.

Not surprisingly, within the discussion group this question was set, the North and South Americans (spookily, with the exception of severals Canadians) argued strongly for option A, whereas the British, Australian and other Europeans argued passionately for Option B.

It caused quite a row, I can tell you..!!

The core difference is in the attitude towards winning. Americans are determined to win at all costs. The result is everything. Nobody remembers the guy with the silver medal.

To Europeans, the result is still highly important, but we have a strong sense that it should be achieved with honour and dignity. Better to lose than to win dishonourably.

In 1986, Diego Maradona deliberately cheated in a World Cup Quarter Final in Mexico City between England and Argentina. He handled the ball into the goal and thus set Argentina on the way to winning the match. It was the most blatant act of cheating in world cup history and he has become notorious in this country for it. Indeed, today, small children who play the game today, call that form of cheating "Doing a Maradona". And yet, he then scored a goal so sublime in its brilliance, that British viewers voted it the greatest goal of all time...!!

We despised what he did for the first goal, but stood up and applauded him to the rafters for his second. How does that happen..?

Argentina won that world cup in 1986, and from your comments I would gather you would applaud them for that. You have no qualms that a better team (and Bobby Robson's England WERE a better team than that Argentina side) was eliminated from the competition unfairly because the only man in the 125'000 capacity stadium who didn't see the handball was the referee..!!

You talk about the laws of the game being sacrosanct. Well, OK, let's talk about the laws of football, and cricket. You will see that the spirit of fair play is, actually, written into the laws of both games.

Association Football, Law 12 (Fouls and misconduct):

A player will be cautioned and shown the yellow card (or red card for a second or subsequent cautionable offence) if, in the opinion of the referee his is guilty of Unsporting Conduct.

Examples of Unsporting Conduct is defined in the laws of the game but are too lengthy to list here. See the link.

https://www.thefa.com/thefa/rulesandregulations/~/media/Files/PDF/Get%20into%20Football/Referees/LOTG201011.ashx/LOTG201011.pdf

In cricket, the principle of fair play is not only included in the laws, but is made the direct responsibility of the Captains, Quote from the Laws of Cricket:

THE PREAMBLE – THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET
Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that
it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.


Here is one you may find interesting, from Law 42:

15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to
attempt to run out the non-striker. The ball shall not count in the
over.


Now, this law makes it legal to attempt to run out a batsman before the ball is bowled... quite legal... and yet, no bowler ever attempts to do it... Why..? Because it's considered "Ungentlemanly". In the 150 year history of test cricket, no batsman has ever been dismissed in this way. Can you comprehend such a thing..? I'm trying to give you an example of the mindset of sportsmen here. A perfectly legitimate tactic is spurned because of principles that transcend the desire to win.

What you called Andrew Strauss "Whining", was in fact, him taking his responsibility to the spirit of the game seriously and making a perfectly legitimate - within the laws - approach to his opposite number who actually agreed with him..!! And this was UNANINIMOUS with the entire Indian team.

Note Article 4 of the preamble of the Laws of Cricket, which says:

4. The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for:
? Your opponents
? Your own captain and team
? The role of the umpires
? The game's traditional values


Note the last of these: The game's traditional values.... These things are intensely important to us, and not only Europeans, but Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders.... all non-Europeans, but whose sporting institutions were strongly influenced by the British expatriates that introduced these sports to their countries.

The British invented these sports, and we did so with the spirit of fair play to the forefront. To us, fair and decent play is far more important than any victory medal or winners cup.

Sadly, we were unable to influence the Americas and that is where the "Win At All Costs" mentality has been nurtured to such a degree that nothing eles matters, and is seen as a virtue in itself.

You talk, quite pragmatically, of using (what we see as) cheating as a form of tactical awareness..... that the end justifies the means. I'm afraid we don't see it that way. We'd rather be able to hold our heads up at the end of the day and say that if we lost, we lost with dignity and honour.

I'll leave you with the first verse of a poem by Henry Newbolt which says it all:

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night
Ten to make and the match to win
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play, and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat.
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his captain's hand on his shoulder smote
"Play up! Play up! And play the game!"



Or how about the Olympic motto:

It's not about the winning, it's about the taking part.


.
Leon On December 28, 2019




San Diego, California
#9New Post! Aug 04, 2011 @ 00:02:04
@Jennifer1984 Said

Actually, I fully understand a lot of what you say in your response. Firstly though, I'm afraid I can't comment on the rules or ethics of American Football because I simply don't know enough about them. I bow to your superior knowledge there, but I would point out that they were surely drafted by non-Europeans and therefore written to a different set of sporting values.

I am quite aware that a number of countries.... almost exclusively in the Americas.... have no understanding of the European concept of "Fair Play", although many South Americans who have come to make a lot of money playing football (real football, not armoured rugby.... and we were calling our game football while Americans were slaughtering each other at Gettysburg, whereas the Princeton vs Rutgers match didn't take place until 1869 so please acknowledge and respect our precedence in the nomenclature) in Europe have come to understand, and even enjoy, the principles of fair play to which we aspire.

I understand where you're coming from when you talk of cheating as a form of strategy. The American concept of sport is often quite different to that of Europeans. I once conducted a poll on the subject on another forum. I set two questions under the heading "What is sport". The questions were:

A. Sport is a part of the entertainment industry the purpose of which is to enrich the participants and organisations connected with whilst providing leisure to the masses

B. Sport is a contest between two or more individuals or teams, played to an agreed set of rules and common values, for the purpose of achieving an honourable and fair result.

Not surprisingly, within the discussion group this question was set, the North and South Americans (spookily, with the exception of severals Canadians) argued strongly for option A, whereas the British, Australian and other Europeans argued passionately for Option B.

It caused quite a row, I can tell you..!!

The core difference is in the attitude towards winning. Americans are determined to win at all costs. The result is everything. Nobody remembers the guy with the silver medal.

To Europeans, the result is still highly important, but we have a strong sense that it should be achieved with honour and dignity. Better to lose than to win dishonourably.

In 1986, Diego Maradona deliberately cheated in a World Cup Quarter Final in Mexico City between England and Argentina. He handled the ball into the goal and thus set Argentina on the way to winning the match. It was the most blatant act of cheating in world cup history and he has become notorious in this country for it. Indeed, today, small children who play the game today, call that form of cheating "Doing a Maradona". And yet, he then scored a goal so sublime in its brilliance, that British viewers voted it the greatest goal of all time...!!

We despised what he did for the first goal, but stood up and applauded him to the rafters for his second. How does that happen..?

Argentina won that world cup in 1986, and from your comments I would gather you would applaud them for that. You have no qualms that a better team (and Bobby Robson's England WERE a better team than that Argentina side) was eliminated from the competition unfairly because the only man in the 125'000 capacity stadium who didn't see the handball was the referee..!!

You talk about the laws of the game being sacrosanct. Well, OK, let's talk about the laws of football, and cricket. You will see that the spirit of fair play is, actually, written into the laws of both games.

Association Football, Law 12 (Fouls and misconduct):

A player will be cautioned and shown the yellow card (or red card for a second or subsequent cautionable offence) if, in the opinion of the referee his is guilty of Unsporting Conduct.

Examples of Unsporting Conduct is defined in the laws of the game but are too lengthy to list here. See the link.

https://www.thefa.com/thefa/rulesandregulations/~/media/Files/PDF/Get%20into%20Football/Referees/LOTG201011.ashx/LOTG201011.pdf

In cricket, the principle of fair play is not only included in the laws, but is made the direct responsibility of the Captains, Quote from the Laws of Cricket:

THE PREAMBLE – THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET
Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that
it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.


Here is one you may find interesting, from Law 42:

15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to
attempt to run out the non-striker. The ball shall not count in the
over.


Now, this law makes it legal to attempt to run out a batsman before the ball is bowled... quite legal... and yet, no bowler ever attempts to do it... Why..? Because it's considered "Ungentlemanly". In the 150 year history of test cricket, no batsman has ever been dismissed in this way. Can you comprehend such a thing..? I'm trying to give you an example of the mindset of sportsmen here. A perfectly legitimate tactic is spurned because of principles that transcend the desire to win.

What you called Andrew Strauss "Whining", was in fact, him taking his responsibility to the spirit of the game seriously and making a perfectly legitimate - within the laws - approach to his opposite number who actually agreed with him..!! And this was UNANINIMOUS with the entire Indian team.

Note Article 4 of the preamble of the Laws of Cricket, which says:

4. The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for:
? Your opponents
? Your own captain and team
? The role of the umpires
? The game's traditional values


Note the last of these: The game's traditional values.... These things are intensely important to us, and not only Europeans, but Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders.... all non-Europeans, but whose sporting institutions were strongly influenced by the British expatriates that introduced these sports to their countries.

The British invented these sports, and we did so with the spirit of fair play to the forefront. To us, fair and decent play is far more important than any victory medal or winners cup.

Sadly, we were unable to influence the Americas and that is where the "Win At All Costs" mentality has been nurtured to such a degree that nothing eles matters, and is seen as a virtue in itself.

You talk, quite pragmatically, of using (what we see as) cheating as a form of tactical awareness..... that the end justifies the means. I'm afraid we don't see it that way. We'd rather be able to hold our heads up at the end of the day and say that if we lost, we lost with dignity and honour.

I'll leave you with the first verse of a poem by Henry Newbolt which says it all:

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night
Ten to make and the match to win
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play, and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat.
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his captain's hand on his shoulder smote
"Play up! Play up! And play the game!"



Or how about the Olympic motto:

It's not about the winning, it's about the taking part.


.



I don't know how you translated what I said to "winning at all costs". We Americans don't believe in the latter any more than you Europeans do.

We do not support cheating either, but, again, we just have a slightly different definition of it, as, for us, it refers to the act of circumventing the rules SECRETLY. This is why we look down on doping and steroids. We look down on practicing banned methods of stealing signals. We also have a hard time with the practice of diving in soccer, which fans here hate and cannot understand why it is so prevalent abroad, as it is circumventing the rules in secret by feigning a foul or resulting injury. We also don't believe in blatantly injuring the opposition (Tonya Harding) to gain an edge. Etc, etc.

We DO have rules of sportsmanship as well, such as, in addition to following the rules as they are written, trying your hardest, not whining if it isn't enough to defeat the opposition, cheering the effort of both participants, and holding your head up even if defeated.

The highly revered and all time highest winning American football coach (in terms of percentage), Vince Lombardi, once famously said "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing." However, by this he wasn't asking his players to cheat, but he simply meant that total effort and devotion should be made in winning the game within the rules as they are WRITTEN DOWN.
tom On February 10, 2014
i love .....





Notlongagoinaplacenotfaraway,
#10New Post! Aug 04, 2011 @ 00:30:35
I am sorry to interupt this large scale debate on cheating, sportmanship etc,
however my two pence is that the idians should have stuck by their guns. Although it would be nice to be worlds number 1 for a change (even though it is a game played by like 9 countries, so a bit like americas world series were only american teams play) Bell was a tit and made a a school boy error. He should have been punished for that arrogance
Leon On December 28, 2019




San Diego, California
#11New Post! Aug 04, 2011 @ 00:33:07
@tomysandy Said

I am sorry to interupt this large scale debate on cheating, sportmanship etc,
however my two pence is that the idians should have stuck by their guns. Although it would be nice to be worlds number 1 for a change (even though it is a game played by like 9 countries, so a bit like americas world series were only american teams play) Bell was a tit and made a a school boy error. He should have been punished for that arrogance



Where do you reside, just out of curiosity?
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#12New Post! Aug 04, 2011 @ 11:28:05
@Leon Said

I don't know how you translated what I said to "winning at all costs". We Americans don't believe in the latter any more than you Europeans do.

We do not support cheating either, but, again, we just have a slightly different definition of it, as, for us, it refers to the act of circumventing the rules SECRETLY. This is why we look down on doping and steroids. We look down on practicing banned methods of stealing signals. We also have a hard time with the practice of diving in soccer, which fans here hate and cannot understand why it is so prevalent abroad, as it is circumventing the rules in secret by feigning a foul or resulting injury. We also don't believe in blatantly injuring the opposition (Tonya Harding) to gain an edge. Etc, etc.

We DO have rules of sportsmanship as well, such as, in addition to following the rules as they are written, trying your hardest, not whining if it isn't enough to defeat the opposition, cheering the effort of both participants, and holding your head up even if defeated.

The highly revered and all time highest winning American football coach (in terms of percentage), Vince Lombardi, once famously said "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing." However, by this he wasn't asking his players to cheat, but he simply meant that total effort and devotion should be made in winning the game within the rules as they are WRITTEN DOWN.



Very interesting, Leon and yes, I do see what you mean. To be honest, your argument makes a lot of sense in the context of winning the game, however, I think you hit the nail on the head when you say the difference between the attitude of Europeans and those in the Americas (North, South and Central)are one of definition.

It's interesting that you should disagree with the practice of diving in football because that is a practice that has been brought to Europe, largely by South American players who come here to make the big wages. The most infamous cheat of them all, Diego Maradona (see my last post) is an Argentinian who not only revelled in what he did in Mexico in 1986, but is feted and celebrated in his own country as much for that specific act as for winning the world cup.

Of course, we have cheats in Europe too. There are those who go beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable but the difference here is that players who do such things are roundly condemned for it. I quote the example of Paul Collingwood in a One Day International match against New Zealand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87m2d6cV4F0&feature=related

Now, the English team did nothing wrong (legally) in this situation either, and it resulted in a run out. The umpires gave Paul Collingwod the opportunity to withdraw his appeal and he declined to do so, so the run out stood. The cad..!!

Now, whereas in South America, Maradona is considered a hero for his acts of knavery in 1986, Paul Collingwood was condemned by every newspaper, every fan, every lover of the game throughout the cricketing world. In the end he made an apology to the New Zealand team and has said in his biography that if he could go back and change one thing he ever did in cricket, that would be it.

I see where you're coming from, Leon and I understand your point of view much better for your explanations... thanks for that.... but some things exist within the psyche of whole peoples and the attitude towards sport is one such thing.

Unfortunately, your comment above about not whining if it isn't enough to defeat the opposition, Wasn't borne out by the fiasco of the medals table in the Beijing Olympics 2008. The medals table has always.... ALWAYS... been listed in order of the most golds, then the most silvers, then the most bronzes. NEVER in order of the most overall medals won. But with China ahead of the US in Beijing, the US team and public claimed that the US "won" the medals table because, although they had fewer golds than China, they had more medals overall.

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4599875.ece

Frankly, Leon, mate.... it made America look bad. In Europe, we were shaking our heads in sadness at such chicanery. Attempting to fiddle the medals table because you couldn't admit that China beat you fair and square was a very sorry thing to do. What was worse, nobody in the US was putting their hands up about it... from where we sat, the whole country seemed to back this. To us it seemed to be something that the whole US public were supporting. That's a national psyche.

Other sports events, such as the FIFA world cups in Argentina 1978 and Mexico 1986 were also heavily criticised after the event, for the way that crowds, TV coverage, newspapers, etc behaved towards fans and visitors to the country during the tournaments. Again, a national psyche of excessive chauvinism... going beyond the normal expected home support for the host team.... took a grip.

The Australian press attempted to intimidate the England rugby team during the 2003 Rugby World Cup (though the Australian team didn't take part in the "Pom Baiting" ). The press hammered the English and headlines aimed at "Dad's Army" (a reference to the average age of the team) and pointing out Jonny Wilkinson's goal kicking with snide remarks such as "Is that all you've got?" Arch Pom hater David Campese, a long term critic of English rugby, made frequent appearances on TV telling the England team they were rubbish and if they won the world cup he'd walk naked down Oxford Street. He should have kept his mouth shut.

After England beat Australia in the final, with Jonny Wilkinson kicking the winning goal ("which provided the retaliatory headline in the British press of: "That's all we need" ), Mr Campese was held to his word and a week before Christmas 2003, he did indeed, walk down Oxford Street, his blushes covered by sandwich boards reading "The Best Team Won". Fair Dinkum.

So, when you talk of national attitudes towards sport, just watch next year. Of course we want Britons to do well in London. We will support our team to the rafters and we'll take massive joy in every British medal. But we'll also celebrate great performances by our visitors and everyone who wins.... or loses.... with courage, dignity, and above all, fair play, will come away from London 2012 feeling they took part in something momentous. Alternatively, those who connive, cheat and disgrace themselves will earn our scorn... contempt... slight regard. No matter who they are, or where they come from, and that includes our own. And that's a national psyche too.

Dwayne Chambers take note.
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#13New Post! Aug 04, 2011 @ 11:47:59
@tomysandy Said

I am sorry to interupt this large scale debate on cheating, sportmanship etc,
however my two pence is that the idians should have stuck by their guns. Although it would be nice to be worlds number 1 for a change (even though it is a game played by like 9 countries, so a bit like americas world series were only american teams play) Bell was a tit and made a a school boy error. He should have been punished for that arrogance



I couldn't agree more, that Ian Bell is a tit. He should have waited for the umpires to call Over and Time. Perhaps he was very thirsty and wanted his tea a little too much.

By the way, you're not interrupting a private conversation. All opinions and thoughts are welcome.

It is true that the ICC has only had 10 test playing nations, but they span the continents of Europe, Africa, the Indian sub-continent and Australia as well as the Caribbean islands. The ICC has about 50 Associate nations who do not play test matches but are eligible to qualify for the Cricket World Cup. The game is played and followed by around 1.7 billion people worldwide (It is India's national sport... they're fanatical about it, and there are more than a billion people in that country alone..!!), about a quarter of the world's population, so to hint that it is a minority pastime globally is a little off-beam, methinks.

.
Leon On December 28, 2019




San Diego, California
#14New Post! Aug 04, 2011 @ 12:33:19
@Jennifer1984 Said

Very interesting, Leon and yes, I do see what you mean. To be honest, your argument makes a lot of sense in the context of winning the game, however, I think you hit the nail on the head when you say the difference between the attitude of Europeans and those in the Americas (North, South and Central)are one of definition.

It's interesting that you should disagree with the practice of diving in football because that is a practice that has been brought to Europe, largely by South American players who come here to make the big wages. The most infamous cheat of them all, Diego Maradona (see my last post) is an Argentinian who not only revelled in what he did in Mexico in 1986, but is feted and celebrated in his own country as much for that specific act as for winning the world cup.

Of course, we have cheats in Europe too. There are those who go beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable but the difference here is that players who do such things are roundly condemned for it. I quote the example of Paul Collingwood in a One Day International match against New Zealand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87m2d6cV4F0&feature=related

Now, the English team did nothing wrong (legally) in this situation either, and it resulted in a run out. The umpires gave Paul Collingwod the opportunity to withdraw his appeal and he declined to do so, so the run out stood. The cad..!!

Now, whereas in South America, Maradona is considered a hero for his acts of knavery in 1986, Paul Collingwood was condemned by every newspaper, every fan, every lover of the game throughout the cricketing world. In the end he made an apology to the New Zealand team and has said in his biography that if he could go back and change one thing he ever did in cricket, that would be it.

I see where you're coming from, Leon and I understand your point of view much better for your explanations... thanks for that.... but some things exist within the psyche of whole peoples and the attitude towards sport is one such thing.

Unfortunately, your comment above about not whining if it isn't enough to defeat the opposition, Wasn't borne out by the fiasco of the medals table in the Beijing Olympics 2008. The medals table has always.... ALWAYS... been listed in order of the most golds, then the most silvers, then the most bronzes. NEVER in order of the most overall medals won. But with China ahead of the US in Beijing, the US team and public claimed that the US "won" the medals table because, although they had fewer golds than China, they had more medals overall.

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4599875.ece

Frankly, Leon, mate.... it made America look bad. In Europe, we were shaking our heads in sadness at such chicanery. Attempting to fiddle the medals table because you couldn't admit that China beat you fair and square was a very sorry thing to do. What was worse, nobody in the US was putting their hands up about it... from where we sat, the whole country seemed to back this. To us it seemed to be something that the whole US public were supporting. That's a national psyche.

Other sports events, such as the FIFA world cups in Argentina 1978 and Mexico 1986 were also heavily criticised after the event, for the way that crowds, TV coverage, newspapers, etc behaved towards fans and visitors to the country during the tournaments. Again, a national psyche of excessive chauvinism... going beyond the normal expected home support for the host team.... took a grip.

The Australian press attempted to intimidate the England rugby team during the 2003 Rugby World Cup (though the Australian team didn't take part in the "Pom Baiting" ). The press hammered the English and headlines aimed at "Dad's Army" (a reference to the average age of the team) and pointing out Jonny Wilkinson's goal kicking with snide remarks such as "Is that all you've got?" Arch Pom hater David Campese, a long term critic of English rugby, made frequent appearances on TV telling the England team they were rubbish and if they won the world cup he'd walk naked down Oxford Street. He should have kept his mouth shut.

After England beat Australia in the final, with Jonny Wilkinson kicking the winning goal ("which provided the retaliatory headline in the British press of: "That's all we need" ), Mr Campese was held to his word and a week before Christmas 2003, he did indeed, walk down Oxford Street, his blushes covered by sandwich boards reading "The Best Team Won". Fair Dinkum.

So, when you talk of national attitudes towards sport, just watch next year. Of course we want Britons to do well in London. We will support our team to the rafters and we'll take massive joy in every British medal. But we'll also celebrate great performances by our visitors and everyone who wins.... or loses.... with courage, dignity, and above all, fair play, will come away from London 2012 feeling they took part in something momentous. Alternatively, those who connive, cheat and disgrace themselves will earn our scorn... contempt... slight regard. No matter who they are, or where they come from, and that includes our own. And that's a national psyche too.

Dwayne Chambers take note.



I think you are right in that the art of diving came from Latin America, as I have seen plenty of U.S. - Mexico matches to discover this. That certainly is one seperate realm of sportsmanship between us, further illustrating the different notions of sportsmanship coming from different locales.

Thing about the medals tables, is you mention that the medals tables have always been listed by golds. That is interesting, because here in the U.S. I remember growing up (and I am old - 41 now lol) always seeing the medal tables arranged by total number in our newspapers. So perhaps the Americans were complaining because of the feeling that the medal tables were suddenly changed from what we were always used to seeing, to fit another country's rank. Maybe we didn't realize that they were always listed differently in this manner everywhere (outside of the US) and thought that the rules were unfairly changed regarding that without our knowledge. That would be different than just complaining that the charts should be changed from the norm to fit our own ranking. as I find it hard to believe we would do that.
Jennifer1984 On about 14 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#15New Post! Aug 05, 2011 @ 11:19:44
@Leon Said

I think you are right in that the art of diving came from Latin America, as I have seen plenty of U.S. - Mexico matches to discover this. That certainly is one seperate realm of sportsmanship between us, further illustrating the different notions of sportsmanship coming from different locales.

Thing about the medals tables, is you mention that the medals tables have always been listed by golds. That is interesting, because here in the U.S. I remember growing up (and I am old - 41 now lol) always seeing the medal tables arranged by total number in our newspapers. So perhaps the Americans were complaining because of the feeling that the medal tables were suddenly changed from what we were always used to seeing, to fit another country's rank. Maybe we didn't realize that they were always listed differently in this manner everywhere (outside of the US) and thought that the rules were unfairly changed regarding that without our knowledge. That would be different than just complaining that the charts should be changed from the norm to fit our own ranking. as I find it hard to believe we would do that.



It would be interesting to know how the US sports authorities, and public media reported the medals tables in 1896, 1912 and 1964 when the US finished with the most gold medals, but were second or lower in the overall medal count.

I know I'm a bit of an Olympics junkie, but these things do intrigue me. I'm also aware that in the early years of the modern olympics, medals were awarded for all sorts of odd events... In St Louis in 1904, medals were actually awarded for Mud Throwing..!! Also, there are differing versions of the "official" medal tables for the early years of the modern games. But hey... it's an interesting point.

At the end of the day, Leon, I guess we all have differing standards of what is considered "right and wrong", and we all have our reasons for it. Fair enough.

To think that all this comes out as a result of one individual being in a bit too much of a hurry to get his tea is one of those odd little quirks of sport that make discussion of such topics so absorbing. Long may it continue.

I'd be interested to know of any little quirky events that have happened on your side of the pond, which might have thrown up similar discussions or points of interest down the years.

I'm fascinated, now.


.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Mon Aug 08, 2011 @ 06:21
3 812
New posts   Politics
Sun Jul 31, 2011 @ 16:16
30 2427
New posts   Q & A
Fri Jun 17, 2011 @ 13:55
65 6457
New posts   Politics
Tue Mar 15, 2011 @ 11:58
338 14995
New posts   Random
Tue Mar 14, 2006 @ 11:42
8 528